Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2027 (number)

Delete This is not encyclopedic, there is nothing special about this number, do we have an entry for all numbers up to some arbitrary limit? PatGallacher 17:02, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

  • Keep. Small primes are encyclopedic. I can think of people searching individual numbers from Wikipedia. jni 17:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep small(ish) twin primes. Kappa 19:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) OK no vote for the moment. Kappa 23:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The List of twin primes currently goes up to (1019, 1021). If someone wanted to expand it up to and including (2027, 2029) that would be commendable. And there's plenty of room. What is gained by having a separate article for one individual twin prime? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not particularly small, and it's not even a small twin prime, thus not interesting enough for its own article. The only incoming link is as an example excretion of the Prime Number Shitting Bear, which presumably explains its creation. sjorford →•← 23:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essentially a dictdef. But do not move to Wiktionary!. As noted above, if someone wanted to List of twin primes up to and including (2027, 2029) that might be a useful thing to do. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I wish to confirm my vote for Deletion. Just look at the addition we've just had, this comes close to being pure gibberish. What on earth does it mean to say that a number is close to being a non-prime? I did vote before, I am not trying to vote twice. PatGallacher 02:20, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Comment. Should be deleted but now, IMHO, it does rise to the level of BJAODN. I love the suggestion of a practical application: "If one needs to store exactly 300,000 units of a product in a storage area of narrow dimensions, and 150 units wide is not an option, one can come very close to the goal with a length of 2027 units." I certainly hope the recent additions are a mischievous joke and not serious. By the way, googling on 2027 reveals many other vacuous and silly pseudo-facts that could be added to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "In some instances 2027 comes very close to being non-prime, but does not quite make it." In some instances this article comes very close to making sense, but does quite make it. Jonathunder 05:39, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
    Note that the gibberish trivia was added after this was proposed to deletion, at the time it was a perfectly valid number stub. I have reverted the anon, feel free to move his text to BJAODN or merge some of it back to the head revision. jni 06:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Raving Loony 10:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) [Note: this is user's third edit. His first edit was to some page about lasson/Faethon and second was a (invalid) vote cast in VfU. jni 11:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ]
  • Delete as irrelevant number. We do not need articles on several thousands of individual numbers. Radiant! 11:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A number should be very remarkable to deserve its own article. Carrp | Talk 13:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable just for being a prime. No symbolic meaning. JFW | T@lk 03:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, even if it is a twin prime. DaveTheRed 08:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I found this interesting: "As a factor in multiplication, 2027 produces some notable numbers very close to large round base 10 numbers: 2027 x 37 = 74,999, 2027 x 74 = 149,998, 2027 x 148 = 299,996 and 2027 x 296 = 599,992." Delete, tho, unless someone feels we need articles on every single number. Ketsy 23:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a big deal, and other primes are better. 3001 × 2999 = 8999999. And—get this!—2999 is prime, too!
  • Keep, for people like the preteen maths nerd I once was - David Gerard 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't care if Wikipedia is not paper. I believe is was a colleague of Ramanujan who proved that every number is "special" in some way, and this article doesn't even do a good job of explaining why 2027 is special. There are an infinite number of integers, and they can't all have articles. Even the project to do an article on every Bible verse has more merit than this, because at least it, unlike the integers, is drawn from an exhaustible source. NTK 05:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Our image of the Prime number shitting bear catches him in the very act of shitting—2027! In the words of the Church Lady, "Well, isn't that special?" Dpbsmith (talk) 12:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Very funny. No. NTK 14:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • BTW, I thought it was Hardy, and the story I remember is that a colleague said that 1729 was boring, and whoever it was said "Not at all. It is the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep this and all numbers nanaszczebrzeszyn

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.